| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): My hon. Friend's new clause gives me some cause for concern, as it would provide considerable discretion to the Secretary of State. Proposed subsections (5) and (6) provide for an appeal. Will he confirm that an appeal to the appellate body could relate not only to the amount of compensation but to the principles involved, in case the Secretary of State should get it wrong?
Mr. Gray: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and I am certain that he is right in what he suggests.
I ask the Labour party to show people in the countryside the same compassion as we showed in Committee. It is with a heavy heart that I quote the Minister's response when we raised the question of compensation in the last sitting of the first Standing Committee on the Bill:
- "Certainly those who are made redundant have certain statutory entitlements: they are entitled to use the Employment Service to find alternative employment. There are opportunities for training . . . There can be no rights to compensation that rely on allowing people to be cruel . . . I am advised that there is no obligation, either legal or moral, to pay compensation to those who may be affected by the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 27 February 2003; c. 1256–57.]
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in supporting new clause 1.
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) acknowledge, I thought rather graciously, that he had lost the argument about the principle of hunting with dogs. I hope that that will be reflected in the remainder of the debate and in the actions and attitudes of his colleagues in another place. He said that this was a completely different Bill, which is not what he said a week ago.
Mr. Swire: Will the Minister give way?
Alun Michael: I shall do so in a moment or two; let me at least get started.
As I said in Committee, I am confident that there is no problem in relation to the European convention on human rights or our legislation in that regard. Of course, the next point at which certification comes is on introduction to the House of Lords.
Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
Before I start to give way to hon. Members who wish to intervene, I make the general point that the current employment situation in rural areas has improved in terms of the number of people in employment—more so, in many rural areas, than in urban areas that have benefited from the policies of this Government. It is with that in mind that I turn to the issue of compensation.
Mr. Swire: The Minister repeated the accusation that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that we had lost the argument. If he did say that, he subsequently retracted it and said that we had not lost the argument, merely the vote. No one outside this building believes that we have lost the argument.
Alun Michael: I refute that utterly. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said it not once, but twice, and he had to be invited by a Back Bencher to retract it. I know about winning the argument and losing the vote: that is different from what the hon. Gentleman has said throughout these debates.
Mr. Grieve: I want to move the Minister away from trite points to a matter that is fairly fundamental. At some point this evening, he will invite me to vote on the Third Reading of a Bill that does not have the imprimatur of the Secretary of State that it is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. I have serious reservations about that, and the Minister owes it to the House to explain in some detail why he considers that it is so compatible.
Alun Michael: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the relevant debates in Committee. For instance, the "Deadline 2000" Bill on a complete ban was certified as compatible.
David Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House would benefit from your guidance on whether the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) would be more appropriate to the Third Reading debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we should simply proceed with the debate: all these points of order take up far too much time.
Alun Michael: Parliamentary procedure requires that a Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House must make a statement on compliance before its Second Reading. We did that on introducing the Bill to this House.
Mr. Gray: This is a different Bill.
Alun Michael: It is not: it is a Bill that has been amended by this House. This House amends many Bills,
and many differ at this stage of their passage through the House from the precise form in which they were introduced. The Bill remains a Government Bill, and it remains compliant. That will be certified in time for Second Reading in the Lords. Other comparable Bills have been certified. I remind hon. Members of the challenges mounted by the Countryside Alliance in relation to the Scottish legislation. It has had no success at all in trying to promote the concept that Conservative Members are trying to bring to this House. There is no foundation to the points that they are making: they are specious.
Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is the same Bill. The Bill that was introduced into the House of Commons did not ban hunting: it licensed it. This Bill bans hunting: it is therefore a completely different Bill. My authority for that is that the right hon. Gentleman himself said that the Bill that he introduced was not to ban hunting. The fact is that he is now introducing another Bill, and he should be ashamed of himself for so doing.
Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for advancing such a specious argument. The Bill that was introduced included the banning of certain activities, the exemption of other activities, and a system of registration allowing certain other exemptions to apply. The Bill that we have now—
Mr. David Cameron (Witney) rose—
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should contain himself at least until I reach a comma or a full stop.
The Bill that we have now still includes the banning of some activities and the exemption of others, and has been shown to be compliant with human rights legislation when similar legislation has come before the House. I therefore refute what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire says. I understand that he is trying to construct an argument to undermine the Bill, but that is not a wise course of action.
Mr. Gray: The Minister says that it is the same Bill. How, then, does he explain a letter from himself to the Deputy Prime Minister, dated 14 May, in which he says that
- "a 'complete ban' amendment would destroy the architecture of the Bill, undermine the strong, simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the Bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty which is totally banned by the Bill as it stands."
8.15 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister responds, I cannot see how these exchanges relate in any way to new clause 1. I should be grateful if the Minister would now relate his remarks to the new clause.
Mr. Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am mindful of what you say, but we have to make a decision about whether the Bill is salvageable in
accordance with the Human Rights Act. Surely, therefore, the question of whether the Bill has been entirely changed is highly pertinent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that point more than once. My job is to ensure that we address new clause 1, and I ask the Minister to do so.
Alun Michael: I merely say that the Bill is compliant and that that will be certified at the appropriate stage of the processes that I described. I must now comply with your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Under new clause 1, compensation would be paid to all those whose livelihoods would be affected as a result of the ban on activities such as fox hunting, deer hunting, mink hunting and hare coursing events. The proposed scheme would be extraordinarily wide-ranging—those entitled to compensation would include any business or employment affected by the Bill, and it would apply to the loss of any service currently provided by hunts. New clause 1 is clearly based on the equivalent compensation provisions in section 5 of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, but whereas that Act resulted in the payment of compensation to about a dozen fur farmers who were directly prevented from carrying out their existing businesses, the number of people who might have grounds to claim under new clause 1 would be impossible to determine or predict. It is impossible to be more precise than that, because the terms of the proposed scheme are drawn so widely and so vaguely. Anyone who is materially affected by the ban on hunting could claim compensation; and "materially affected" is defined in subsection (8) in such a way as to mean affected in any way
- "which may be measured by ordinary principles of commercial accountancy."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |